On January 9, 2014, an estimated 10,000 gallons of MCHM (4-methylcyclohexane methanol) spilled into West Virginia’s Elk River from a facility run by Freedom Industries. The spill was one mile upstream from West Virginia’s principal water intake and distribution center. After the spill, 300,000 West Virginians were warned by their governor not to use their household water for “drinking, cooking, washing, or bathing”.In June of the same year, we staged a site-specific production of Henrik Ibsen’s classic play An Enemy of the People near the site of the chemical spill. An Enemy of the People is about a man who discovers evidence that a local business has been unknowingly polluting the town’s hot springs, the town’s main source of revenue and jobs. We’ve chosen to do this play at this place at this time in order to provoke a conversation about science, industry, the environment, government, public safety, and democracy: What is the best way to balance all of these elements? And who has the power to decide what that balance should be?Each performance was followed by a post-show talkback dialogue between the audience, the cast, and invited elected officials, scientists, and community leaders.Though written over 130 years ago, An Enemy of the People is a play for our time but with special relevance for West Virginians as they try to chart their future in the wake of the Elk River chemical spill. As lives and jobs hang in the balance, how can the people determine who has their best interests at heart and who is the enemy of the people?Henrik Ibsen’s 1882 play An Enemy of the People tells the story of Thomas Stockmann, who discovers evidence that the baths, his town’s main source of revenue and jobs, are being polluted by a local industry. Stockmann must find the strength to stand up to opposition from the press, civic leaders, and, most importantly, the local government. Peter Stockmann, the mayor of the town and Thomas’s brother, is more concerned with the economic benefits of keeping the baths open for the tourist season. What follows is a battle about the meaning and validity of evidence. Does scientific evidence speak for itself? What happens when evidence is contested by competing interests? And how do we know whom to trust, particularly when the person presenting the evidence may have interests of his own?